David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill: Regurgitating old policies or Strategic Political Maneuvering?

Introduction:

David Seymour, leader of the ACT Party, has recently championed the Treaty Principles Bill, positioning it as a key element of his party’s platform. However, a closer examination reveals a less original genesis for this legislation. The bill, far from being a novel creation, is essentially a resurrection of a 2005 private member’s bill introduced by Rodney Hyde, then also of the ACT Party.

Read this:

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20060222_00001314/hide-rodney-treaty-of-waitangi-principles-bill-first

This historical context significantly alters the narrative surrounding Seymour’s current political strategy. This article will explore the history of the bill, its previous dismissal, and the implications of Seymour’s reuse of this legislation.

Video:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DFmHUMpSWPI/?igsh=MTIyd25tbWdxcTVj

Furthermore, we will analyze the parallel with Seymour’s Resource Management Bill (RSB), drawing connections to Winston Peters’ 2006 Waitangi deletions Bill.

The original Treaty Principles Bill, introduced by Rodney Hyde on December 8th, 2005, aimed to redefine the interpretation and application of the Treaty of Waitangi. While the specific details of Hyde’s bill may differ slightly from Seymour’s current iteration, the core tenets appear remarkably similar. The impact of the 2005 bill was limited, primarily confined to political discourse and debate within Parliament.

It did not significantly alter the legal or practical application of the Treaty of Waitangi. The failure of the bill highlighted the deep divisions and complexities surrounding Treaty interpretation in New Zealand.

The lack of success underscored the challenges in achieving a consensus on such a sensitive and historically charged issue. Fast forward to the present, and we find Seymour reviving Hyde’s proposal. This recycling of a previously rejected bill raises several important questions.

Is this a strategic political move, capitalizing on a perceived shift in public opinion or a reflection of the ACT Party’s consistent stance on Treaty interpretation? Or does it simply reflect a lack of original policy development within the party?

The parallel with Seymour’s Resource Management Bill (RSB) further strengthens this argument. The RSB, similarly, draws parallels to Winston Peters’ 2006 Waitangi deletions Bill. While the specific mechanisms differ, both bills aim to streamline or simplify resource management processes.

The comparison to Hyde and Peters’ previous attempts isn’t intended to diminish Seymour’s political acumen. However, it does challenge the narrative of him being a groundbreaking policy innovator.

By presenting these bills as new and original, Seymour risks misleading the public. The historical context is crucial for understanding the true nature of these proposals and for engaging in informed political debate. The revival of these older bills highlights a broader issue within New Zealand’s political landscape: the recycling of policy ideas. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with revisiting and refining past proposals, transparency is paramount.

The public deserves to know the history of these bills, their previous failures, and the reasons for their resurgence. Without this context, the debate becomes skewed, and the public’s ability to make informed choices is compromised.

Conclusion:

While David Seymour is entitled to advocate for his political beliefs, the historical context of the Treaty Principles Bill and its connection to Rodney Hyde’s 2005 proposal is undeniably significant. Similarly, the parallels between the RSB and Winston Peters’ 2006 bill cannot be ignored. These connections challenge the image of Seymour as a solely original policy architect, suggesting a more strategic, perhaps even opportunistic, approach to policy development. A comprehensive understanding of the historical context is crucial for a nuanced and informed assessment of Seymour’s current political agenda.

Advertisement

Recommended For You

About the Author: Dr Rawiri Waretini-Karena

Ngāti Māhanga, Ngāti Māhuta, Ngāti Kaahu, Ngāti Hine- Ngāti Mōrehu: Lecturer, Educator, Independent researcher.